It is much more difficult politically to sell reductions in the welfare state. Almost half of the population of the country receives a government check or benefit. 70 million on Medicaid, 53 million on SS and Medicare, 47 million on food stamps, etc.
Our military has been in decline for some time. We couldn't do the Gulf War today. We used to structure our forces on the so-called Two War criteria. That has been reduced significantly. The military will do what the civilian leadership wants.
Of course.
But cutting guns “x” will not equal increasing butter “x”. The butter is being bought with borrowed money now. The cost of that borrowing is determined not only by our economy but, because it is so huge, by our military strength.
As we decline (by cutting our military for one example) the interest for that borrowed money will rise, leaving less money for the welfare.
A billion dollars cut from military spending in a year may allow only a 750 million dollar rise in welfare spending that year after the increased carying costs on the debt.
And those increased carrying costs, and the debt, will accelerate.
The obvious historical option is to use our huge military now to confiscate wealth from other countries to support our welfare state. But I don’t believe all the rest of the world even ‘could’ (never mind ‘would’) provide us the funds to support this profligate state.